Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the diplomatic emergency triggered by the announcement of a new 28-article proposal for ending the war appeared – momentarily – to have been stabilised. A American diplomat spoke of "significant advancement" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Moscow made its response: another massive barrage of rocket attacks on Kyiv.
The Cycle of Diplomacy and Destruction
The succession of conflicting incidents captured the grim essence of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are conducted: positive announcements are released from various governments. Considerable effort is devoted on containing certain initiatives. By night, Russian leadership brutally reminds the world that, for them, conflict continues to be the primary tool for achieving "settlement".
Nighttime Reality
As military strikes developed into the early hours of Tuesday, the immediate reality of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is equipped to monitor rocket firings from across the border, a capacity afforded by up-to-date information. From observation points, defense planes that had been dispatched to engage hostile cruise missiles flew past – modern combat jets provided to Ukraine by Western partners.
Moments later, Kyiv's air-defence systems thundered: defensive missiles deployed against a Russian ballistic missile. This was a modern interception technology at work, presumably delivered by allied countries. Every firing shakes the surroundings, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to grim resignation: maybe the hostile projectile won't hit its mark this time, protecting urban areas from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a heavy machine gun opened up on a aerial vehicle somewhere nearby, part of a defensive team – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the shots failed to hit the opposing UAV – it continued its flight toward its target.
With pauses, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv greeted the early updates: several casualties, devastation and infrastructure problems in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still went about their day – enduring hostilities. But those entire period demonstrated Ukraine's vital need on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are evidently unprepared to substitute in the short term.
Ineffective Peace Efforts
The detailed framework from US administration generated strong feelings, controversy and profound anxiety – and temporarily diverted attention from Ukraine's largest corruption scandal in years. Yet, we have witnessed similar scenarios, after prior negotiation attempts and multilateral gatherings.
Every new approach from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a diplomatic cavalry charge against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with other European capitals, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually achieve victory. This trend will, no doubt, persist.
Political Considerations
It is convenient to criticize certain parties of persistently promoting Kremlin's demands. But that does not seem to be the complete picture. Washington works based on a assumption familiar among experienced diplomats: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The US administration believes that it is unrealistic to pressure the Kremlin to relinquish the areas that it already controls in Ukraine's south or east.
The problem is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through statements or actions, from believing that the situation will not change more in its advantage in the near future.
Conflicting Perspectives
Therefore, the Kremlin is certain that the clock favors them – that Ukraine and its allies are approaching exhaustion. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the maximum possible gain is almost completely absent. There may be many attempts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's leader remains completely certain in the result.
On the contrary, Ukrainian leadership believes that Ukraine can still hold out, gradually sacrificing civilians and areas but preventing a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a truce. Now, subjective factors are coming into play: leadership ambitions to negotiate peace and secure international recognition, and Ukrainian leadership's twin challenges – on one hand, not to distance important partners, and on the other, to rally Ukrainians around the country's interests against any initiative Kyiv finds unacceptable, so that their attention does not move to homefront challenges. And although their task will now be considerably more difficult after recent developments, it remains very improbable that this will alter their fundamental strategy.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Conclusion and Outlook
It took a only one week to kill the 28 points of the latest plan. Forceful and unpredictable management of the matter by American leadership, pushback by Ukraine and the rest of Europe, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, current information leaks, all did their job.
While new plans based on old ideas are approaching, Kyiv, London and other allied nations should draw one fundamental conclusion: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to fend off political attacks from Washington that are founded on Moscow's terms and demonstrate particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they maintain solidarity and strengthen their defence capabilities at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither political nor armed coercion will be able to defeat them. In the meantime, Ukraine's capability to counter nocturnal attacks will, for the coming months, largely rely on ongoing international assistance.
